Oklahoma Representative James Lankford came under fire Tuesday for his comments about homosexuality, discrimination and the workplace.

After an impromptu interview with Rep. Lankford, the liberal blog “Think Progress,” reported Lankford said he believes an employer should be able to fire someone for his or her sexual orientation.

Lankford said the blog misrepresented what he said. He said he told the interviewer being gay is a choice and should not be protected from workplace discrimination. He said he believes the distinction lies in a person’s choice to act on their sexual orientation.

He denied saying that he thinks someone should be fired because they are gay.

“That’s absurd,” he told News 9 anchor Stan Miller.

The representative said he also believes marriage is a union between a man and woman.

So, yeah. Lankford is splitting hairs at this point. Implicit in the statement that gay people should not be protected from workplace discrimination is the assumption that they should be fired for their behavior. Otherwise, protecting that “choice” would be a non-issue. Also, I take issue with Lankford’s assumption that he’s being targeted for being a Christian, when he’s actually being targeted for being a bigot. By stating that he is being targeted for his religious beliefs implies that all Christians are also inherently bigots, something a lot of my Jesus-loving friends would most certainly take offense to.

Lankford also states that it should be enough for an employee to do their job well, and if they do, they shouldn’t need any sort of law protecting their sexual preferences. While we’re at it, we probably don’t need the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission either. Because all employment is solely based on one’s ability to do the work required of the position, right Rep. Lankford? All employment is inherently fair, right? I don’t need to be given equal opportunity employment rights because in this day and age, it’s really my choice to remain a woman when I could just have surgery to correct that fault, right? Maybe I’m playing devil’s advocate here.

All of this comes on the heels of the state senate’s resolution to uphold marriage as a union between a man and a woman on Monday. You can check out Lankford’s interview with ThinkProgress.org here. And then you can find my eighth grade English teacher and have her diagram his sentences to see if there really is a difference between what ThinkProgress.org said he said and what Lankford said he said.

Let me get this straight: Lankford claims persecution because he is a Christian (which is a choice), but does not want to protect homosexuals at the workplace because he believes homosexuality is a choice. Oh, the irony …

Man, this is a powderkeg, and I don’t agree with Rep. Lankford’s position, but THIS comment is terrible, and if you have a soul, you’ll retract it.

Sex abuse is not funny. It does happen at camps, and when it does, it’s terrible and tragic. It’s not appropriate to label those who are anti-gay as child molesters, because the vast, vast majority are not, just like the vast, vast majority of gay men also do not abuse children. Falls Creek is hilarious to make fun of, his ginger-ness is hilarious to make fun of, hypocrisy is hilarious to make fun of, Republicans are hilarious to make fun of.

But unless you have evidence, accusing Rep. Lankford of child abuse is not funny, and there’s no amount of “stop taking this so seriously” that can make it funny.

Jennifer, freedom of religion is protected by the constitution. Freedom of sexual orientation is not. Until the constitution is amended to include freedom of sexual orientation, then it should not be considered a protected right.

Except you’re wrong. You read the Constitution (or, more exactly, the Bill of Rights) in the way that some of its initial opponents feared it would be read–as a limitation. You forget that the purpose of the Bill of Rights is not to say “These are our inalienable rights, and across this line government shall not cross,” but rather is to say “These are only SOME of our inalienable rights (the ones we could agree on today), and across this line government shall not cross.”

Also, your reference to the Constitution is only half useful, because we’re talking at least in part about private interactions–whether a private employer can fire an employee for sexual orientation. The Constitution does not protect us from private religious discrimination…a statute and some court cases do that.

The writers of the constitution understood that our view on rights would evolve over time, that is why they included an ammendment process. But they didn’t want everything under the sun listed as an unalienable right. That is why so many constitutional arguments involve the 9th ammendment to determine whether or not a right is worthy of ammendment status.

Hmmm pregnancy is a “choice” (or at least continuing one is) and that’s protected! Sigh…. and when will these asshats understand that being gay is NOT a CHOICE! I’m straight… 1. I never CHOSE to be straight, just like I can’t CHOOSE to be gay! smh!
I often wonder if the real problem here is people like James Lankford are gay but fight the fact that they were born gay and because of their upbringing they think everyone should be miserable like them and deny who they are too!

Lankford is such a moron…of course in Oklahoma morons are elected as officials so no surprise there. I’m sure he’s a “good” Christian who follows the Bible right?? Hey idiot stop wearing cotton and stop eating shellfish. Oh and go back to Texas while you’re at it!

It can only be inferred that James has developed this theory because every day he awakes to the choice to be straight or not. I have some terrible news for him: if you have to make a conscious choice whether or not to suck some c*ck every morning you may not be straight…
Clearly, its time for James to fire up the chaps and tongue wrestle some dude on a float down Classen.

I think this may all spur from him being homosexual and suppressing it. He has gotten married and had children just trying to cure his homosexuality but still struggles with it and his attraction to men thus concluding that it really is a choice in his case. He does make the distinction that it is a choice to ACT on ones homosexual feelings. The priesthood is for folks who choose not to act on their sexual desires at all or at least claim too. Is this reasonable to assume or am I way off base here. The only way a person could say something so out of line would have to come from personal experience. Right?

Good Gravy…first I spit soda thru my nose when I read “Also, I take issue with Lankford’s assumption that he’s being targeted for being a Christian, when he’s actually being targeted for being a bigot. ”

And then I discovered a new superhero when I read ” if you have to make a conscious choice whether or not to suck some c*ck every morning you may not be straight…” in Mack Daddy’s comment.

I’ll be sure to thank the good Lord for turning me on to The Lost Ogle tonight in my proayers!!